WGPlus (Archive)

Editorial Commentary:
Examining the ‘sacrificial entrails’ of past promises & current announcements to anticipate the 2030+ future

Back in 1975 we had a PM who ‘negotiated’ a better deal in the EU (then EEC) and promised a rosy future - only if we stayed ‘in’.  To many people ‘things could only get better’ as we were ‘in debt’ (some things never change) and ‘always on strike’, so the promises of the EEC seemed very attractive to us (yes I am that old!).

History now seems to be repeating itself, which is appropriate as ‘John & Joan’ would probably not have voted to ‘stay in’ if they could have looked ahead 14+ years and seen the how treaties (such as Maastricht (1992) and Lisbon (2009) would alter our relationship with the now European Union of 28 members (EEC then 9) with another 7+ waiting in the wings to join! (EU enlargement: The next seven - BBC News).  Along the way, a planned EU Constitution was thrown out by French & Dutch voters in 2005, but what does that matter in a democratic union?

How the political establishment ‘conned’ us into believing we were joining an economic market rather than a future political & economic union has been comprehensively covered by BBC – Nick Robinson:  Them or Us and it seems the current Government is set to use the same tactics they used then (Telegraph:  Seven lessons from Britain's 1975 EEC referendum).

So if the government can project ahead and so ‘accurately’ foretell the UK’s economic & political future, why don’t we consider how some of the EU’s own recent press announcements could evolve over a similar time scale?

Take the European Agenda on Security: Paving the way towards a Security Union, which will probably evolve into an EU-wide police / security state with us being ‘forced’ by law to hand over all our high grade intelligence to other EU countries – some of which have a more ‘dubious’ reputation for both generating key intelligence & keeping secrets.  The recent experiences of the French & Belgians is the driving logic behind this centralisation, but remember that an organisation is only as strong as its weakest link and there will be some very weak links in the (probably by 2030) other 35(?) countries of the EU.  Currently we are a key member of the 5 Eyes Intelligence Alliance, but will that still be the situation in 2030?  Remember even an ‘independent’ Scotland was not guaranteed automatic access to the alliance!
The Five Eyes | Privacy International ~ Guardian:  Would Brexit damage British intelligence?

Increasingly when one talks of ‘security’ in the age of ISIS, one sees images of armed troops on the streets of Europe and hears talk of the need for ‘boots on the ground’ in places like Libya.  Despite the EU not having any armed forces, they recently published Central African Republic: EU military training mission approved.

So where will they find ‘in the field’ experienced military personnel to provide this training, as there are probably few EU countries that have them available for deployment?  As a NATO Review article says; “The numbers speak for themselves. Some 25% of NATO members do not have an air force, 30% have no naval force or maintain a navy with less than 600 sailors, and 50% are fielding an active army of less than 20,000 soldiers. Europe needs less soldiers – but more European ones - NATO

Having centralized ‘Security’, what will be more natural in an organisation that seeks ‘ever closer monetary & political union’, than the coerced merging of national armed forces by 2030?  For anyone who thinks that is a wild idea, I would refer them back to the path travelled since 1975.  The USA might then decide that a Union with a bigger population than theirs should be able pay to defend itself and that their part in NATO should only ‘defending’ the Atlantic up to the coast of the EU continent.  Could / would all EU countries then ‘stump up’ their require 2% of GDP for military expenditure and would the UK accept ‘non-naval’ countries being able to out-vote them on the design & deployment of our ships & planes (say goodbye to the defence of the Falklands)?

After one EU expansion, we were ‘promised’ only 13,000 Polish migrants a year and ended up with 700,000 over a couple of years, but many now accept that their integration into the UK has been mainly successful.  However, what happens when we start being assigned ‘our share’ of the future millions of migrants that will try & enter the EU by 2030.
Parliament advocates a centralised EU asylum system and legal ways to migrate ~ Options for reforming Common European Asylum System and developing safe & legal pathways to Europe

MEPs are demanding new EU-wide “readmission” (return) agreements which they say should take precedence over bilateral ones between member states and third countries. They insist that migrants should be returned only if the country to which they are being returned to is safe for them.
4 fundamental rights issues to consider in EU safe countries list

Even in the unlikely event that the Syrian conflict ends ‘well’, that will not stem the flow by much as ‘endless millions in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Africa, etc. flee conflict, drought & famine in search of a better life in Europe, with jobs, housing, education and PEACE.  For further crystal ball gazing you might care to check out; Population Institute: 2030 The ‘Perfect Storm’ Scenario from 2009.
Global Food & Farming Futures ~ Human tide: the real migration crisis ~ Research & Innovation: new modelling results link natural resources & armed conflicts ~ Basic life for many is sustained by food & water, not oil (2nd item)

Finally, the UK Government has assumed in its Treasury analysis that ‘all will be well’ with its path of ‘ever closer union’ (EESC encourages European Commission to go further in deepening EMU without delay), but according to EU News:  Deficit targets: EC “not strict enough”, warn EU Auditors it has been found that; The EC is not strict enough in implementing the Excessive Deficit Procedure – designed to keep EU public finances in order - according to a new report from the European Court of Auditors.   The auditors warn that the Commission does not go far enough in the crucial area of monitoring structural reform: its focus is on the legal aspects of the procedure rather than the actual reforms.
EU Agency grants: "shortcomings persist", say Auditors in new report

So, can / should we believe our UK ‘masters’ who don’t want us to rock their political boat with the UK as part of the EU?

Last time we were promised only membership of the EEC – trade but no political union & primacy of Westminster & UK laws and look where we have ended up!

This time we are told that we should stay in (‘standing to the side’), while all but 1 or 2 countries evolve into the monetary & political union of the United States of Europe combining around  33 countries by 2030+.

Before anyone decides to which way to vote in the referendum, it may pay them to (re-)read George Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four, which features the UK as is set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstate Oceania (mainly Europe).
(SparkNotes: 1984: Plot Overview)

Click here to download the whitepaper including Sefton Council case study